Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202112456)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112456

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 May 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and the landlord’s handling of the required repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. 

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy began on 15 March 2021. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
  2. The resident raised a complaint in March 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the condition of the property when she signed her tenancy agreement. She advised that the property had been dirty with food waste and glass. There had been a delay in un-capping the gas at the property and she then found that the boiler was cutting out and would need to be replaced. She added that the shower did not work, there was a leak from her kitchen sink and the landlord had not provided a key for her letterbox. She said that she had not been able to move into the property straight away due to the repair issues and had needed to pay another month of rent at her former property. She also said that her infant child had become ill due to the cold temperature in the property due to a lack of heating. She felt that the repair issues should have been resolved before she moved into the property and wanted compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for the service the resident had received since accepting the property and acknowledged that there were more repairs needed at the start of the resident’s tenancy than would be expected.
  4. It confirmed that the repair to the sink was completed on 31 March 2021, the new boiler was installed on 13 April 2021 and the new shower was fitted on 26 April 2021. The letterbox had initially been repaired on 26 March 2021, however, this was re–raised and repaired on 13 April 2021 as the previous lock had been poorly fitted.
  5. It noted that the resident had raised concerns about the behaviour of the initial contractor who attended the repair to the letterbox and said that it could not confirm what action it was taking due to data protection regulations. It offered the resident £538 compensation, comprised of £204, which was the equivalent of two weeks rent for the period the resident said she was unable to move into the property between 15 March 2021 and 30 March 2021, £84 for the loss of hot water and heating between 31 March 2021 and 13 April 2021, £50 in recognition of the delay in raising a formal complaint and £200 for the resident’s time and trouble and inconvenience caused.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property, her complaint and the level of compensation offered. She wanted the landlord to refund her rent between 15 March 2021 and 27 April 2021 as she did not feel that the property was habitable during that time. In addition, she wanted further compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and the time and trouble she had needed to spend pursuing repairs and communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues and the resident’s family’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  2. The resident has raised a separate complaint with the landlord regarding the behaviour of a contractor who had been sent to her property. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. If she remains dissatisfied once she has completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, she may then approach the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns.
  3. As part of her communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has requested that the landlord to off-set the rent amount payable between 15 March 2021 and 27 April 2021 due to the property being uninhabitable during this period. Under Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice in relation to how to proceed with a case. As such, the Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to off-set the rent payable during this period. However, we can determine whether the compensation offered by the landlord in relation to its failings was proportionate 

The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and the landlord’s handling of the required repairs.

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to installations for the supply of gas, electricity, water and sanitation, including baths and showers. It would also be responsible for heating and water heating equipment it had provided and for supplying the resident with relevant keys for access to the property and letterbox at the start of the tenancy. The resident would be responsible for allowing access to the property for the landlord to complete repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours and made safe, following this, further repairs may be required. Examples of emergency repairs include heating repairs during winter months where there is no other heating, uncontainable water leaks or no water supply. Appointed repairs should be completed within 28 days and include issues such as partial loss of water supply.
  3. When a property is void (does not have a tenant), a landlord is obligated, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that when a tenancy commences it is ‘fit for human habitation’ and free from category one hazards (where there is an immediate risk to a person’s health and safety).  The landlord has not provided specific information related to the standard a property should meet before it is let. However, it is good practice that a property should be habitable, meaning it is not unsafe to live in and has basic facilities for washing, heating and cooking etc.
  4. In this case it is not disputed that the resident experienced several significant repair issues including to her boiler and shower following her acceptance of the property on 15 March 2021. The resident has advised that she did not feel the compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate and felt that this should be equivalent to the rent payable between 15 March 2021, when she signed the tenancy agreement and 27 April 2021, when the replacement shower was installed, on the basis that she felt the property was uninhabitable during this period.
  5. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that it completed a void inspection of the property on 8 January 2021 in line with its obligations. At the time, several repair issues were identified, including that clearing and cleaning of the property was required. There is no evidence to suggest that any issues with the boiler, shower or kitchen sink were identified during the inspection. 
  6. It is noted that the landlord had attempted to carry out a gas safety inspection on 19 January 2021 in line with its obligations but it was not able to fully check the boiler as the gas had been previously capped and any testing could not take place until the property was tenanted and the gas was restored. Not all repair issues can be picked up during the void inspection and in some cases repair issues are only identifiable once a tenant moves into the property.
  7. Whilst it is noted that there were several repair issues which needed addressing within the property which were likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident, there is no evidence to suggest that the property had any category one hazards which would deem it uninhabitable between 15 March 2021 and 27 April 2021.
  8. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident felt that she was not able to move into the property until 30 March 2021 and has offered £204 compensation which is equivalent to two weeks rent. The landlord was not strictly obliged to offer this as the resident had signed the tenancy agreement, at which point she became responsible for paying the rent as agreed. There was also nothing to suggest that the property was uninhabitable during this time.
  9. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer this amount as a gesture of goodwill in view of the overall inconvenience caused by the repair issues during this time. The landlord also acted fairly by asking the resident to provide evidence of additional rent she said she had needed to pay at her former property for it to consider, although no evidence was provided and it was therefore reasonable that no further compensation in respect of this was paid.
  10. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a clean of the property on 18 March 2021 following the resident’s request on 17 March 2021 which was within a reasonable timescale. The resident had also advised that she experienced difficulties setting up the gas and electricity supply to the property. However, in line with the tenancy handbook, the resident would be responsible for arranging the electricity and gas supply to the property and the landlord did not have control over any delays caused by the actions of the supplier.
  11. It is noted that there was some delay in repairs being actioned following the resident’s initial reports of issues with the kitchen sink and boiler on 22 March 2021. The evidence shows that repair appointments were arranged for 25 and 26 March 2021, however, the resident was not available to provide access as she was still residing at her former property which was out of the local area. In line with the tenancy agreement, it would be the resident’s responsibility to provide access to the property. Any delays caused by the resident’s inability to provide access during this time were outside of the landlord’s control and it would not be expected to offer additional compensation in view of this.
  12. The resident confirmed that she and her family had moved into the property on 30 March 2021. The leak from the kitchen sink was resolved on 31 March 2021, within the landlord’s emergency timescales once re-raised which was reasonable.
  13. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the time the resident was without the use of heating and hot water in the property until the boiler was replaced on 13 April 2021. The landlord’s offer of £84 in view of the loss of heating and hot water between 31 March 2021 and 13 April 2021 (14 days) was reasonable given that its compensation policy states that £3 per day would be payable for each service between 1 October and 30 April. Given that the resident had a functioning electric heater during this period, the landlord was not strictly obliged to offer additional temporary heating to the resident unless this was requested.
  14. Following this, it is noted that the resident’s shower was not fully replaced until 27 April 2021. The landlord initially attended within a reasonable timescale and has explained that the subsequent delay was due to a supply issue as the shower was not of a standard type. Whilst the lack of shower was likely to have caused some inconvenience, it did not prevent the resident from accessing bathing facilities through the use of her bath. As such, the landlord would not be expected to offer additional compensation for the loss of facility. It was, however, appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the overall inconvenience caused by the delay in installing the shower within its responses and its additional offer of £200 compensation.   
  15. In relation to the resident’s concerns about accessing her letterbox, it is unclear from the evidence provided as to what the resident was told regarding the keys which were left at the property, although the resident said that she was advised to dispose of these. She first reported that she did not have a key to her letterbox on 26 March 2021.
  16.  Whilst this was attended to on the same day, the issue was not fully rectified until 13 April 2021 and the resident raised concern that the contractor who had attended was not wearing a mask to prevent the spread of Covid-19 and had been verbally abusive.
  17. The landlord would not be expected to share details of any disciplinary action it had taken against the contractor due to data protection regulations. In addition, the Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining why it could not share further information regarding the contractor’s behaviour and apologising to the resident for the overall inconvenience caused.
  18. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  19. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident for any inconvenience caused. It put things right by carrying out the required repairs and offering the resident £488 compensation in recognition of the time she said that she was not able to move into the property, the loss of heating and hot water once she moved in, the time and trouble she had spent pursuing the matter and the inconvenience caused by its failings.
  20. The compensation award of £488 is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which states that amounts in the range of £250 – £700 are proportionate where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. For example, failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy or where the resident (time and trouble).
  21. Overall, the landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. 

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. The landlord should respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days. Where a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two (the investigation stage). At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. The policy notes that if a resident remains dissatisfied they are encouraged to contact its complaints department and a further response may be issued. If, at any stage there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timescale.
  2. The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 31 March 2021, there was a delay in acknowledging the complaint and the landlord provided its response on 12 May 2021, which was approximately 18 working days outside of its ten working day timescale at stage one. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the delay in acknowledging the complaint and offered the resident £50 compensation in view of the inconvenience. The resident confirmed that she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage two on the same day and the landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 June 2021, which was within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. It is noted that the resident raised further concerns following the landlord’s stage two complaint response and the landlord issued a further response on 27 June 2021. Whilst this slightly extended the timeframe of the overall complaint, the resident was not significantly disadvantaged by this as the response was issued within a reasonable timeframe and further reviewed the landlord’s previous responses.
  4. The landlord has acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the initial delay in acknowledging her complaint and offering £50 compensation in recognition of any inconvenience caused. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been service failure but this was of a shot duration and did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and its handling of the required repairs, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the associated complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £538 as previously agreed if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was found on this basis.